Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the German Shepherd Dog Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

06-11-2014 06:03 PM

NancyJ

Good news.

06-11-2014 05:33 PM

Merciel

As a belated update, and to finish off this thread: I got Pongu's OFA results back last week. Both of my mutt monsters came back as OFA Good.

If both his texticles were descended there is no need for them. I can't be positive that's what they are, just what it looks like. If they were both retained maybe. Who knows. If that's what they are it makes no difference to the dog!!! Curiouser and curiouser.

Both of his testicles were descended at 16 weeks. The shelter only neutered him after I signed the adoption papers (guess there's no point investing in a neuter operation before you know the dog is going to be adopted and not euthanized), so I got to see him intact, if only for a very brief time.

It does look exactly like that's what they are, so I think you must be right.

Well, like I said, I'm glad to know what they are, even if I'll never know exactly why they were put there. At least it means my dog didn't just get kicked in his butt a lot when he was little, which is what I thought before.

05-23-2014 07:03 PM

gsdsar

If both his texticles were descended there is no need for them. I can't be positive that's what they are, just what it looks like. If they were both retained maybe. Who knows. If that's what they are it makes no difference to the dog!!! Curiouser and curiouser.

The white things look like hemoclips. They are permanent ligatures. We see them in some spays, in those exact spots, but never a neuter. Interesting.

Oh, huh, thank you for posting that. That does look consistent with the blown-up view.

I wonder why the vet would tell me something different then.

I also wonder when it could possibly have happened. Pongu has never had any surgeries other than his neuter, and he didn't have any stitches at all for that. Apparently whatever vet the shelter used only held the neuter incision together with glue, which made my regular vet really unhappy when they first examined Pongu right afterwards.

edit: well, the obvious answer is that of course it was done while he was neutered, but... sheesh, what a strange thing, to use apparently unnecessary stitches for a neuter when they didn't use the ordinary stitches to hold the incision shut.

Having one mystery solved means opening others, I guess! Anyway, thank you again for the explanation, I feel a lot better knowing that.

05-23-2014 05:39 PM

Merciel

I honestly don't know enough to guess at alternative explanations myself -- I can only go by what they told me, which was "incidental calcification" with the explanation I posted above.

On the full-size version (and the alternate view for his spine X-rays), it's easier to see that they are not identically shaped or sized, but they are still really weird looking.

Whatever they are, they don't seem to be hurting him and they're not indicative of any disease (as far as I know), but... it is a strange finding, I agree.

05-23-2014 05:38 PM

gsdsar

Looks good.

The white things look like hemoclips. They are permanent ligatures. We see them in some spays, in those exact spots, but never a neuter. Interesting.

Those white marks looks almost too solid, and evenly placed (at least over the hips/femoral head area) to be natural bone? Any chance of them being something bizarre, like embedded staples? Poor boy, either way, but they just don't look natural. Although I am no radiologist.

They look pretty good to me though did you do back and elbows as well? That is something many working dog folks do. What are the short white marks, just curious?

I did his back but not his elbows -- his front half (shoulders, elbows, etc.) had been X-rayed when he was a pup because he had some intermittent lameness from pano and an old injury from his first owner, and that looked okay at that time, so I didn't have it done again this time. The spine X-rays came back fine.

Pongu does have a wobbly left hock and some laxity in his front left pastern, but neither the ortho nor the PT thought those would be serious issues, although we might want to use an ankle brace on that front left paw if we ever end up trialing in agility. I think that a career in agility is extremely unlikely, given Pongu's mental problems, but it's good to know just in case.

The small white marks are incidental calcifications -- just little calcium accretions in his body. The vets did not think they were of any concern. Apparently that is sometimes a thing that can happen from soft tissue injuries (and other causes too, but that's the one they told me was most likely, given what we know about his terrible first owner).

05-23-2014 03:45 PM

Castlemaid

I agree - they look pretty good! Much better than Keeta's hips, but she was older and not positioned so meticulously, as they were diagnostic X-Rays, not OFA.

Shouldn't have any issues pursuing any sport of your choice.

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.